Top social conservative leaders in key battleground states are urging John McCain not to pick a running mate who supports abortion rights, warning of dire consequences from a Republican base already unenthused about their nominee.

McCains comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standards Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridges pro-abortion rights views wouldnt necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives. For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCains pick as a signal of his ideological intentions, there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized.

It absolutely floored me, said Phil Burress, head of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values. It would doom him in Ohio.

Burress emailed about a dozen pro-family leaders he knows outside Ohio and forwarded it to three McCain aides tasked with Christian conservative outreach.

That choice will end his bid for the presidency and spell defeat for other Republican candidates, Burress wrote in the message.

He and other Ohio conservatives met privately with McCain in June, and while the nominee didnt promise them an anti-abortion rights running mate, his staff said they could almost guarantee that would be the case, Burress recalled.

Now, Burress said, hes not even sure [Christian conservatives] would vote for him let alone work for him if he picked a pro-abortion running mate.

James Muffett, head of Michigans Citizens for Traditional Values, met with McCain along with a handful of other Michigan-based social conservatives Wednesday night.

A good portion of us were urging him to pick a pro-life running mate, Muffett said, noting that they were doing so before even getting wind of the Standard story. That choice would go a long way to solidify his credentials.

Muffett said McCain didnt offer any promises on the issue, but rather reiterated his anti-abortion record and assured them that he was aware of how critical the base was to the electoral success of Republican presidents dating back to Ronald Reagan.

To select a running mate who supports abortion rights would be wrong-headed, short-sighted, fracture the Republican Party and not allow us to capitalize on the Democratic Partys fracture right now, Muffett argued.

If he does that, it makes our job 100 times harder. It would dampen enthusiasm at a time when evangelicals are looking for ways to gin up enthusiasm.

McCain, Muffett said, got that message in their meeting.

Some people in the movement say it would be the kiss of death. He heard that in the room last night.

With polls showing McCain and Obama still neck-and-neck in many competitive states, conservatives argue that their candidate must turn out Christian conservatives in large numbers to win.

In Iowa, for example, many in the GOP say Bush won in 2004 after losing there in 2000 because he bolstered turnout among the religious right in the conservative western part of the state and in exurban areas.

Bush only won by 10,000 votes, recalled Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance and a Republican committeeman from the state. Youre going to have to have a huge turnout of that base again for McCain to win.

And, Scheffler noted, its not just a matter of ensuring that social conservatives vote  picking a supporter of abortion rights could erode McCains volunteer base.

Ninety percent of the workforce for Bush in 04 came out of that constituency, he said, alluding to the Christian right. Picking a Ridge or a [Joseph] Lieberman would not be helpful at all.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, who represents a conservative, heavily Dutch district in western Michigan where Republicans traditionally pile up huge margins, said a pro-abortion rights running mate would be problematic.

Thats not where theyd want him going, Hoekstra said of the party base.

McCains campaign sought to tamp down the uproar, suggesting the candidate had merely been overly expansive about a sensitive topic and hadnt intended to float a trial balloon.

The point that McCain was making is that people can differ on one issue and still be a vital member of our party, said an aide. The fact that Governor Ridge is not perfectly in line with the party platform does not make him any less of a Republican.

In the interview, McCain said the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party.

And I also feel that  and I'm not trying to equivocate here  that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out [for vice-president].

He added: I think it's a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life, but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a  albeit strong  but just it's a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that.

The GOP base aside, some observers believe that picking an outside-the-box running mate such as Lieberman could help McCain with the broad middle of the country who are fed up with the political status quo and enable him to pick off even more Clinton backers.

This move to a pro-choice running mate such as Lieberman could help reshape his message to appeal to swing voters, said Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster who worked for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he was a Republican and has written a book about moving away from the two-party system. The right-wing is not going anywhere and choice is a key issue for over-40 women who voted for Hillary in the primaries.

But to some in the GOP who supported other candidates in the primary and are having trouble mustering much enthusiasm for McCain, the mere mention of a pro-choice running mate is disheartening.

A lot of the troops here are on the fence or disappointed, said Elizabeth Sipfle, a Michigan Republican and former leader of Mike Huckabees grassroots Hucks Army organization who contacted Politico to register her concern. Lets not get our blood boiling.

[... Murdering a baby is evidence that the person is not a Christian, despite
(checking a box, or) the attitudes of many US churches to the contrary...]

I completely understand your arguments now.

Perhaps I should say many Americans who call themselves
Christians and who even believe they are Christian (I
know many) have abortions because they are naive. They
trust that the Government would not make something lawful
that is immoral.

152
posted on 08/15/2008 12:23:10 AM PDT
by Jo Nuvark
(Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)

because your view on abortion and ending the legality of it is pretty way out of the mainstream here ...your little fan club here notwithstanding

ending the legality of infanticide is a crucible issue for most of us here and is very high of the wish list of the board's founder

yet you claim that we should just let government manage business ( a platitude which is pretty broad)

and by default leave abortion legal ..

that is something I will never submit to and I'm surprised to hear a conservative say as such

you make this claim sort of about government not entering morality which one would believe means you don't cotton to religion in government yet your tagline is a pet Bible verse for Jews and some Christians advocating US foreign policy that favors Israel based on Scripture.*

*my own personal support of Israel has nothing to do with my Christianity

so do you favor leaving abortion laws alone since the government has no business dealing in morality (what about killing?) but you think it's ok to base foreign policy on morality (religion)

I been in these campaigns before; not at the highest level, but high enough to at least 2nd if not first-hand how these discussions play out.

-McCain now has the support of 88% of the base. At this stage, it effectively means he has a lock on the base (note: Obama’s base support is only 83%). This is despite McCain’s not having to change his position on immigration or judges. In other words, his attacks on Obama are all he needs to get the sheep to follow. He need not make any more “concessions” to get the base vote. He is “wise” to broaden his appeal, esp. amongst women by selecting a pro-choice candidate since he’s tapped out his base anyway.

The Base IS going to the polls to vote AGAISNT Obama anyhow. They’ll hold their nose and vote (R). And no one is going to “stay home”; typically there are local issues that bring conservatives to the polls anyway, so while they’re there, they’ll pick the best of two evils which is McCain.

Decisions must be made from now on, to expand McCain’s coalition; while unpleasant, its safe to say you can disregard the base’s views on immigration and abortion, provided that the party can make Obama’s presidency seem far worse. At the end of the day and despite all the complaints and idle threats, the base will be reliable voters.

My post assumes that abortion never should have been
legalized. However, the Supreme Court made killing
the unborn legal and that in my opinion makes them
untrusted to make moral (religious) decisions.

Parents have allowed our government to be the moral
arbiters for our children. That’s just wrong. Don’t
you think we could turn this lost ship if families
actually taught Godly principles from the home?

I agree that parsing morality and the law is difficult.
But the Supreme Court crossed into religion when they
decided a fetus isn’t a life. That’s not their job.

Let’s face the facts. Most “conservatives” will slink into the voting booth and vote for Sen. McCain regardless of what he does or says. Sure. They’ll talk the talk about being dsisappointed, and whine and moan all the way. But when the day is done, they’ll still line up to vote for him.

The GOP is well aware of this, which is precisely why we have seen so little progress on issues like the deficit, abortion, and border security over the years.

158
posted on 08/15/2008 4:10:55 AM PDT
by RKBA Democrat
(Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)

Well now, as I understand it, a veep might become president, especially when the sitting president is old.

“Personally, I’m getting to the opinion Lieberman would be a good choice for veep.”

I like Lieberman too— one of the few pro-choice politicians who I do like [partly because he used to be pro-life before running with Gore]— though as VEEP, I think that would be a mistake. If McCain chooses him, it will be a strange convention. How would McCain prevent the spectacle? I heard Rasmussin and Zogby discuss it with Hannity. True— be wary of what pollsters say, but they made a strong case against Lieberman.

The right to smoke pot energizes the libertarians. Class warfare and doomsday prophets [enviro-wackos] energize the DNC. And the war against rogue justices energizes the RNC. Not just Roe, but don't forget Kelo— another issue McCain should exploit. It's common for pro-Roe justices to also be pro-Kelo. It's hard to sever the Siamese twins because you have to vet out a lot of fine nominees if they can't value life.

As for our legal arguments, have you read Mark Levin's Men in Black? I highly recommend it.

“I believe that Government is not to blame for this wholesale slaughter of the innocent.”

What happened is that FDR appointed a bunch of radical justices. And prior to that, the colleges were infiltrated with leftist constitutional law professors [Coulter’s ‘Treason’ sheds some light on Marxist infiltration]. If you study the shift in our legal system, the drastic changes first occurred from the FDR court. The ABA to this day is incredibly leftist. That's why Bush had a hard time with his nominees— he refused to listen to the ABA’s brazen partisanship.

Our law is founded on national tradition and heritage. Black's Book on Law— if memory serves— is a good source to find what genuinely settled law is. A single dissent, so far as I'm concerned, is not settled law. There were strong dissents in Roe v. Wade. Also note that our ‘esteemed’ justices later ruled against the Constitution in their Kelo decision. So it goes beyond abortion. That was a warning bell.

We also were two supreme court justices away from losing our rights to treaties— that recent Supreme Court decision regarding the right of Texas to execute illegal aliens who murder.

“Roe v. Wade aside, we have not been forced to kill our babies. Abortion statistics are staggering because we (yes, I mean Judeo-Christians) have chosen to murder our unborn.”

That is thought provoking, but we could also legalize everything — stealing, murder by anyone's definition— you name it. We would not be forced to do those things, but obviously, the government would be negligent to allow it.

“I believe that liberals have used the abortion debate to divide and conquer. We need to stop this naive militancy.”

We need to educate those who fail to understand originalism in the courts. And frankly, we need to let people know they can pressure congress to impeach rogue justices. We do have that power in the Constitution, although constitutional law professors try to convince themselves that we don't.

Deuteronomy 11:

And you shall teach them (Gods statutes and ordinances V1) to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up. V19.

The law is actually supposed to help preserve our national traditions. The legal term is ‘natural law’. The more we break away from it, the more our society breaks down.

“Though separation of church and state cannot be found in the Constitution, the following might be a better way to view the concept Morality is personal and none of the Governments business. Anything otherwise is kin to dictating religion.”

The original intent of the Founders was to prevent a government run religion. We do not even have the constitutional right to worship Satan or multiple gods. We have the right to “ ... worship God ... “ as we so choose. Monotheism, agnosticism— and arguably atheism— are the only religious rights we have.

“Abortion and terrorism are both wars against humanity. But the battleground for the unborn should be waged from the home (church), not the Supreme Court!”

The original definition of life beginning was officially established long before Roe. Life begins when the child first stirs in the womb. [If anything, modern technology shows that we should err toward life beginning even sooner.] If a murderer intends to kill an unborn child, many people [and some states] have the sense to see that villainy for what it is. The Supreme Court overreached by imposing its will over the states.

 — not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973 — Ronald Reagan

The ‘right’ to abortion is based on a dissent which led to a fictitious privacy right. That's right. Roe v. Wade is based on privacy rights— not from law, but from a dissent. Talk about absurd. That ‘privacy right’ that the dissent conjured was never discovered in the Constitution until 1961. That's how weak Roe v. Wade is.

The modern right to privacy began in 1961 in Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Poe vs. Ullman. — Mark Levin's ‘Men in Black’, page 55.

One should not lightly ignore the dissents in Roe v. Wade. And you might be surprised to hear what some of the justices were like. For example: Thurgood Marshall [a man who admitted that watching soap operas helped him decide cases] Blackmun [who was influenced by fan mail and hate mail], and William O. Douglas [riddled with scandal]. Overpopulation was mentioned more than once by the justices who ‘won the vote’ in Roe v. Wade. Should that have even been on their minds? The Supreme Court's job isn't to legislate. Thoughts of overpopulation are something for legislators to ponder and perhaps to amend the Constitution if there's a need.

If McCain goes ahead and picks a VP that favors murdering children, many people will thoroughly enjoy throwing your words in your face.

That's fine. Heck, you can even go ahead and throw a neer neer nanny nanny boo boo in while you are at it. I would rather be wrong by being skeptical of the media versus trusting them. Oh, and for the record, I think there is a good chance he will choose a pro-choice VP, just not based on this. It is going to be one of his 'good friends' that would be high profile and provide a strategic move (in his mind). Probably Lieberman, Powell, or some other big name figure... I really doubt Ridge, especially if you take out all of the media comments and just look at what McAmnesty said, he never used the words VP in any of the direct quotes, those where editorial statements by the press because they don't give parenthetical quotes as to what they asked, only summarized.

You know I have been seeing nonsense posts like this ever since these reports ABOUT WHAT MCCAIN HIMSELF HAD STATED.

"McCain's comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge's pro-abortion rights views wouldn't necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives"...

Grammar 101 time.. is, what you put in parenthesis a direct quote or is it an editorial statement? Do me a favor, go back to the very first article on this and copy only the direct parenthetical quotes of McCain, not any of the editorialized comments- only direct quotes. Tell me if you saw only his quotes, never seeing the editorial comments, if you would write the same summary as the press did? As I said to Grunthor in a previous comment, I think there is a good chance he will pick a pro-choice VP, Lieberman or Powell, not Ridge as these article imply. The only folks that used the term VP in this article is the press. We need to get back to our old FReeper selves of being critical and distrusting of the media first, not assuming they are right first...

In the years prior to and immediately after the American Revolution, colonists and citizens followed the rule of law brought by British settlers, the “common law.” Rather than being a code of statutes passed by a legislature and printed in a book, the common law was a set of legal standards established in England through court decisions and legal custom.

According to Sir William Blackstone, the renowned 18th century English jurist, under common law, the abortion of a ‘quickened’ fetus was a ‘very heinous misdemeanor.’ At that time the penalty for misdemeanors could be severe; loss of a limb, confiscation of property or life in prison.

‘Quickening’ - when a pregnant woman first feels her child move - generally occurs in the fourth month. Scholars have noted that the common law requirement of a ‘quickened’ baby for the crime of abortion was probably based on a very practical consideration. Since there were no pregnancy tests in the 18th century, evidence that a baby’s movement had been felt might have been the only way to establish with any certainty in a court of law that a pregnancy had existed.

The abandonment of the “quickening” requirement coincided with the 19th century discovery of how conception takes place. The public, lawmakers and jurists were becoming aware of the scientific fact that life begins when a sperm enters an ovum.

During the first decades of the 1800’s, scientists began to understand the cellular basis of life and for the first time were able to observe the process of fertilization in mammals. As the stages of development became clear, it also became clear that abortion kills a living human being, no matter what the stage of the child’s development. The resulting scientific knowledge about the process of conception and development led to efforts to enact stronger bans on abortion. In addition, scientific progress allowed for surgical means of performing abortion, and abortion was perceived to be on the increase. Beginning in 1859, the American Medical Association called for strong anti-abortion laws and vigorous enforcement of them. In view of the claim by twentieth century abortionists that physicians did this only to protect their own profession or solely to protect women’s health, it is useful to quote the doctors themselves on why they wanted action by the states:

“The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime—a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.

“The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of fetal life; . . .

“The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being.

“In accordance, therefore, with the facts in the case, the Committee would advise that this body, representing, as it does, the physicians of the land, publicly express its abhorrence of the unnatural and now rapidly increasing crime of abortion; that it avow its true nature, as no simple offence against public morality and decency, no mere misdemeanor, no attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton and murderous destruction of her child. . “ Volume 12, Transactions of the American Medical Association, pp. 75-78 (1859).

The AMA adopted the recommendation described above and sponsored initiatives in all states, spurring most legislatures to enact strong prohibitions upon abortion that swept away the “quickening” distinction. In the remaining states, abortion remained prohibited by common law.

Pro-abortion historians claim that these laws were passed primarily, if not solely, to protect women from possibly fatal abortions. Concern for pre-term babies was not a factor, they claim. Yet, as law professor Joseph Dellapenna has noted, all surgeries at that time involved substantial risks of death. If legislators were motivated to pass anti-abortion statutes only to protect women, why did they not protect other patients by banning other potentially dangerous fatal elective surgeries?

Coincidentally or not, during this period of pro-life legislative activity Congress passed and 28 states ratified the 14th Amendment, prohibiting any state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.”

By 1910, every state except Kentucky had passed an anti-abortion law (and Kentucky’s courts had declared abortion at any stage of gestation to be illegal).

By 1967, not much had changed. In 49 states, abortion was a felony; in New Jersey, it was a high misdemeanor. Furthermore, 29 states banned abortion advertising, and many outlawed the manufacture or distribution of abortifacients. In 1967, though, state abortion laws began to change, but only after years of organized campaigns by pro-abortion forces.

The American Law Institute (ALI) proposed, in its 1959 model criminal code for all the states, a “reform” abortion law. The model bill, approved by ALI in 1962, declared that abortion should be permitted for the physical or mental health of the mother, for fetal abnormality, and for rape or incest.

While leaders of the American legal community were promoting radical changes in state abortion law, a 1962 case in Arizona generated sympathetic press coverage of the notion of “justifiable abortion.”

Mrs. Sherri Finkbine, a married mother, made public her intention to abort her fifth child. She had taken some tranquilizers/sleeping pills her husband had brought home from a trip to England. The pills turned out to be Thalidomide, a drug that had become associated with birth defects. Fearful of giving birth to a handicapped child, Mrs Finkbine traveled to Sweden, where she had her baby aborted.

In June 1967, the American Medical Association voted to change that body’s long-standing opposition to abortion. With a new resolution, the AMA now condoned abortion for the life or health of the mother, for a baby’s ‘incapacitating’ physical deformity or mental deficiency, or for cases of rape or incest.

That same year, Colorado, North Carolina, and California became the first states to adopt versions of the ALI “reform” abortion law. By 1970, though, four states - New York, Alaska, Hawaii and Washington - passed laws that basically allowed abortion on demand. Of those four, New York’s was the only law without a residency requirement and the state quickly became the nation’s abortion capital.
The pro-abortion onslaught was beginning to face opposition, though, as pro-life forces organized. In 1972, the New York legislature voted to repeal the state’s liberal abortion law, but Governor Nelson Rockefeller vetoed the repeal. Ballot questions in Michigan and North Dakota in 1972 attempted to decriminalize abortion; the measures were defeated by majorities of 63% and 78%, respectively.

Just as pro-lifers were beginning to turn the tide however, the Supreme Court handed down Roe vs Wade in January 1973. With one judicial stroke, over 200 years of legal protection for the unborn was rendered null and void. For the first time in American history, abortion was the “law of the land”.

167
posted on 08/15/2008 8:02:09 AM PDT
by cpforlife.org
(A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at KnightsForLife.org)

But if he chooses a pro-abortion running mate, forget it. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR SUCH A TICKET. Bad enough to have four years or eight years of McCain. Now they want to groom a pro-abort for the next run? No.

That's my position, too. That's why I won't support the ticket if Flip Romney is on it, either. Romney is not a pro-lifer--he just plays one on TV.

[Mark Levin spent all two hours on this veep decision. It's that important to him.]

On a practical strategery note: McCain has a powerful issue against Obama-- Obama's scandalous live 'abortion' issue. Being a hypocrite by choosing someone pro-choice undermines him. If his VEEP is pro-life, then he's well positioned to expose Obama. And even if Hellery squeaks and cackles through the nomination, it would not hurt to tap into the GOP energy of being pro-life.

Abortion and terrorism are both wars against humanity. But the battleground for the unborn should be waged from the home (church), not the Supreme Court!

A mighty convenient position now that the battle for the unborn has already been waged in the Supreme Court (in 1973) and won by the enemy. Perhaps you should have taken it then and tried to convice the left not to fight it there, hmmm?

If you can't legislate the protection of the unborn from the murderous hands of an abortionist because it is a "moral" question, you can't legislate anything meaningful. The purpose of the law is dead.

I, personally, opt out of such an anarchistic notion of government. Such is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned for our Republic.

“McCain just another country club republican disconnected from outside the beltway.”

According to one of Mark Levin's sources, McCain is opposed to appointing Lieberman, but his advisers are trying hard to talk him into it.

McCain strikes me as someone who likes compliments and hates strident opposition. That doesn't help him fit in with conservatives well. Most conservatives don't mince words. That's what leftists do [unless it's behind your back or through anonymity].

I am puzzled by all this talk about this, we have to be talking about Joe as he is the only Lieberman in the Senate.

Does this make sense for the GOP?:

[Senator Lieberman was first elected to the United States Senate in 1988, scoring the nation’s biggest political upset that year by a margin of just 10,000 votes. Six years later, he made history by winning the biggest landslide victory ever in a Connecticut Senate race, drawing 67 percent of the vote and beating his opponent by more than 350,000 votes. In 2000, Senator Lieberman was elected by another overwhelming margin to a third term.

In 2006, Senator Lieberman was elected to a fourth term as an Independent, because of the strength of his record and his accomplishments for the state. He won the general election by more than 100,000 votes. He remains committed to caucusing with Senate Democrats, but will be identified as an Independent Democrat (ID-CT).]

183
posted on 08/15/2008 8:49:16 AM PDT
by Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)

Kelo is just words on paper until someone actually does something with it. The words on paper give it ‘legal(sic)’ blessing, but everyone in the country (including PTBs) have the individual choice to act on it. That's why it is just as important to deal with issues on the philosophical merits, to individuals, and not just legal merits.

Not this conservative. I can't speak for anyone else, but it is already all I can make myself do, to go and cast a vote for the Republican candidate as matters stood. It was always much easier to just sit it out, if not write in another name. It will be an easy matter to not vote for McCain, if he chooses a pro-abort VP. It was already difficult to vote for him, based on his stances on other issues, such as immigration, the climate change hoax, etc. If he chooses a pro-abort VP, he just simplified matters for me greatly, and has lost my vote. No matter what anyone thinks is the government's role regarding abortion-I as an individual will not make myself complicit in supporting people who will help upholds laws allowing the murder of babies. That's my personal stance. He has his, I have mine.

Amen to that. I already plan to take voting day off and possibly the next day due to the hangover I am going to have. It's going to take alot of Maker's Mark to ease my pain after voting for McCain. I can't stomach Obabaroozi, but I want McCain to pick a decent VP, or I might just avoid the hangover all together.

If he picks a pro-abort VP, you and your spouse have a glass of wine with a leisurely dinner, watch a movie instead of election returns, retire early, and take a long walk the next morning instead of turning on the computer/TV.

If he chooses a pro-abort VP, he just simplified matters for me greatly, and has lost my vote. No matter what anyone thinks is the government's role regarding abortion-I as an individual will not make myself complicit in supporting people who will help upholds laws allowing the murder of babies. That's my personal stance. He has his, I have mine.

[... The Supreme Court overreached by imposing its will over the states...]

Thank you for taking the time to reflect on my post.
It is extremely helpful as some of my ideas come from
strong emotion. As I massage this piece, “overreached”
and “Natural Law” are terms I’ll embrace for the sake
of clarity.

****************************

Mr. Antoninus accuses me of advocating anarchy. But
I say the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize murder
of the unborn is anarchy. Just look around and reflect
back from 1975 to now. Does society look organized?
Civilized? Informed? Evolved? I say NO! It doesn’t
take a cultural analyst or a Social Engineer to recognize
that our culture is in serious decline.

To protect civilization, we must practice and teach
God’s law from the home then (because God is faithful
when we obey His Word), that law will naturally flow
out and “correct” the culture.

John Nesbitt’s “Megtrends” makes the point that
lasting and genuine trends start from the bottom
(the home or the street). Synthetic fads start
from the top (advertising or government), and do
not last.

Goverment is our friend when it sticks to the business
of providing infrastructure and protecting EVERY citizen.
We are well past that now. This old ship won’t turn
without a moral, Godly rudder. We won’t find that rudder
in our courts or in our houses of Government. That moral
rudder is in the houses of the people and cannot be
legislated from us. So... we are without excuse.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.